Better host: Australia or New Zealand?

[andmark]

As it says on the tin; who's been the better of the two host nations in terms of hosting (not on field performance), Australia or New Zealand?

I'd go with New Zealand. I've really enjoyed the small ground feel of the NZ matches. The crowds have been greatly enthusiastic and seem friendly; the matches in NZ have genuinely been enjoyable to watch. Other than India's matches, I've not really enjoyed the Australian crowds, particularly after Eng vs Aus match at the MCG felt a bit flatter than expectations would suggest. So yeah, I'd firmly say New Zealand.

 

[James]

Given the fact NZ hosted the Rugby World Cup as a single host, I don't see why NZ and Australia have to share hosting rights each time.


Especially as the Rugby World Cup is the third largest sporting event in the World only behind the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.

 

[GIMH]

Given the fact NZ hosted the Rugby World Cup as a single host, I don't see why NZ and Australia have to share hosting rights each time.


Especially as the Rugby World Cup is the third largest sporting event in the World only behind the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.

No it does seem a bit harsh, especially as with the current sharing arrangements you'd think Pakistan and NZ won't get to host a final at any point

 

[Furball]

Given the fact NZ hosted the Rugby World Cup as a single host, I don't see why NZ and Australia have to share hosting rights each time.


Especially as the Rugby World Cup is the third largest sporting event in the World only behind the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.

Where are you playing the games that Australia have hosted?

 

[James]

Where are you playing the games that Australia have hosted?

The NZ venues aren't being used that much really to think they couldn't be used for more matches.

There's also grounds like the Basin Reserve, Queenstown Oval, Pukekura Park and others that aren't being used at all.

 

[_Ed_]

Cobham Oval up in Whangarei is a fantastic ground as well, and Bay Oval at the Mount.

 

[Athlai]

I dont think its the venues that are the issue or our logistical ability to host alone. I think nz just offer such poor viewing hours to the rest of the cricketing watching world.

 

[TNT]

As it says on the tin; who's been the better of the two host nations in terms of hosting (not on field performance), Australia or New Zealand?

I'd go with New Zealand. I've really enjoyed the small ground feel of the NZ matches. The crowds have been greatly enthusiastic and seem friendly; the matches in NZ have genuinely been enjoyable to watch. Other than India's matches, I've not really enjoyed the Australian crowds, particularly after Eng vs Aus match at the MCG felt a bit flatter than expectations would suggest. So yeah, I'd firmly say New Zealand.

Not really getting why you claim NZ are better hosts than Australia, is it simply because you think NZ crowds are more friendly or is there some other reason? have you been to any of the matches?.

 

[_Ed_]

I dont think its the venues that are the issue or our logistical ability to host alone. I think nz just offer such poor viewing hours to the rest of the cricketing watching world.

Yeah, exactly.

 

[Zinzan]

Impossible to say who's been 'better' IMO. Both have been good from what I've seen.

 

[James]

I dont think its the venues that are the issue or our logistical ability to host alone. I think nz just offer such poor viewing hours to the rest of the cricketing watching world.

As an example, wasn't the Rugby World Cup in NZ the most successful tournament to date ?

I realise they're different sports and different match lengths but even so, I think it's a bit lame for that to be the reason to not have NZ as the sole host.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah I think there's more to it than just the viewing hours.

 

[Furball]

I dont think its the venues that are the issue or our logistical ability to host alone. I think nz just offer such poor viewing hours to the rest of the cricketing watching world.

New Zealand's actually ok, I can catch a couple of hours of the first innings before bed.

West Indies is the ideal for us in the UK.

 

[Prince EWS]

Given the fact NZ hosted the Rugby World Cup as a single host, I don't see why NZ and Australia have to share hosting rights each time.

Well they probably don't have to, but if countries share hosting then it goes back around to each country more often. I do think it basically makes sense to split the CWC hosting into continents even if individual countries are quite capable of hosting by themselves.

 

[Athlai]

By cricket watching world i meant star sport ftr.

 

[Antihippy]

How do you even define such a thing?

Gotta say though the Ind vs pak, aus vs eng and Ind vs SA wouldn't be as epic without the high capacity crowds.

 

[_Ed_]

Gotta say though the Ind vs pak, aus vs eng and Ind vs SA wouldn't be as epic without the high capacity crowds.

Eden Park is capable of that - there'll be more than 40,000 there tomorrow.

 

[TNT]

NZ have done a good job and put on some good matches but to degrade the excellent job Australia have done simply by claiming the crowd is not as friendly seems a bit odd. Maybe there is something else at play other than cricket.

 

[Antihippy]

Eden Park is capable of that - there'll be more than 40,000 there tomorrow.

Still less than half of what the MCG is capable of though.

I do love the idyllic grounds of NZ though. Would love to watch a match in NZ one day.

 

[_Ed_]

Still less than half of what the MCG is capable of though.

Yeah, but pretty similar to Adelaide which hosted India-Pakistan.